No kitties here in the Politics thread, because Braineack is afraid of people disagreeing with his Anarcho-Stalinist views.

I will note that it was not my guys who did this beautiful power hookup. The engineers affiliated with the convention insisted on plugging in all the trucks, to prevent us yokels from doing something stupid. 'Twas those geniuses who decided to pull 30A through a 15A plug on a 50A breaker.

I just talked with the news ops manager who is on site- they are still making repairs. And for the first time in my life, I've had to send an employee to a ******* camping store to buy parts... Hello, Philly, why the smurf doesn't your Grainger keep anything in stock? I wipe my **** with your soggy cheesesteak.

In the years following World War II, the major Allied nations (UK, US, USSR) focused considerable resources and talent on military development. By comparison, the major Axis nations (Germany, Japan) were barred by treaty from re-arming. As a result, their best and brightest engineers had little else to do than devote themselves to automotive engineering.

Remind me again... by the 1980s, the most highly-revered automakers were based in which countries?

So what you're saying is: To make America great again, we need to: Wage war on foreign countries, lose, abolish the Constitution and submit ourselves to foreign rule, and then spend all of our time toying with cars cause we have nothing better to do?

How about we just stop bailing out our car monopoly so a private company is forced to wine-and-dine the best and brightest and just compete?

So what you're saying is: To make America great again, we need to: Wage war on foreign countries, lose, abolish the Constitution and submit ourselves to foreign rule, and then spend all of our time toying with cars cause we have nothing better to do?

How about we just stop bailing out our car monopoly so a private company is forced to wine-and-dine the best and brightest and just compete?

It's a bit of a stretch to compare having a robust and innovative automotive industry to "making America great again."

Such a proposition ignores the demographic factors which contributed to the greatness of Germany and Japan in the post-war period. Neither country, for instance, had a highly heterogeneous population at that time, from a racial / ethnic / religious standpoint. So one might argue just as well in favor of a combination of eugenics and ethnic cleansing, not entirely without merit I might add.

1. The narrative is not it "wouldnt" have happened, but only that something could have potentially been averted or stopped.
2. we have learned now, that not having a defensive weapon of your own, or/and praying, doesn't stop you from crazy knife wielders. Guess what MIGHT have?

A little Indian brave who before he was ten, played war games in
the woods with his Indian friends, and he built a dream that when he
grew up, he would be a fearless warrior Indian Chief.

Many moons passed and more the dream grew strong, until tomorrow
He would sing his first war song,
And fight his first battle, but something went wrong,
surprise attack killed him in his sleep that night

And so castles made of sand, melts into the sea eventually. Jimi Hendrix

So it doesn't seem to matter--if you'r an Indian brave or if you're an old bed-ridden Japanese man, knife attacks will work on you when you're asleep.

I mean, their skulls are pretty weak, and an M84 weighs slightly over half a pound. You could just bash them in the head with it and not even have to set it off, that way you can re-use the grenade to burn down the home of an elderly couple later. You have to think outside the bun...

It's a bit of a stretch to compare having a robust and innovative automotive industry to "making America great again."

Such a proposition ignores the demographic factors which contributed to the greatness of Germany and Japan in the post-war period. Neither country, for instance, had a highly heterogeneous population at that time, from a racial / ethnic / religious standpoint. So one might argue just as well in favor of a combination of eugenics and ethnic cleansing, not entirely without merit I might add.

Wow, you move to Margaret Sanger's old stomping grounds and all the sudden you've got the Eugenics bug. Is this where this "damn the 2nd Amendment" bug is coming from too? Are you hanging out with Bill Maher and Ruthie Ginsberg?

Wow, you move to Margaret Sanger's old stomping grounds and all the sudden you've got the Eugenics bug. Is this where this "damn the 2nd Amendment" bug is coming from too? Are you hanging out with Bill Maher and Ruthie Ginsberg?

No, I've been in favor of mass executions of the stupid for quite some time. Round 'em up into camps and gas 'em by the ******* millions. (Or at least take away their voting rights, whichever is easier.)

And there's a big difference between espousing the repeal of the second amendment and merely analyzing / critiquing it. Not everyone who isn't a gun-totin' redneck is a gun-seizing liberal. Same goes for law enforcement. There are many points of view in between believing that all cops are corrupt, racist, dog-killing murderers and having a Police Athletic League sticker on your back window.

No, I've been in favor of mass executions of the stupid for quite some time. Round 'em up into camps and gas 'em by the ******* millions. (Or at least take away their voting rights, whichever is easier.)

And there's a big difference between espousing the repeal of the second amendment and merely analyzing / critiquing it. Not everyone who isn't a gun-totin' redneck is a gun-seizing liberal. Same goes for law enforcement. There are many points of view in between believing that all cops are corrupt, racist, dog-killing murderers and having a Police Athletic League sticker on your back window.

As a sidebar, have you read much about Gandhi's political teachings? He was actually a pretty horrid racist who supported ethnic cleansing. In his own words, for instance, "the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race."

When Britian declared war on Natal (a region in southern Africa) in 1906, he sold out his own nonviolence / passive resistance thing and encouraged Indians to support the war effort, and encouraged the UK to draft Indians to fight in the war, in order to better his chances of gaining British citizenship.

During the years leading into WWII, he opposed the formation of a Jewish state and the desire of Jews to seek refuge from the looming specter of German persecution. Specifically: "the Jews should disclaim any intention of realizing their aspiration under the protection of arms and should rely wholly on the goodwill of Arabs." Yeah, that worked well.

In his 70s, he slept naked with pre-pubescent girls (who were also naked), including his own grand-niece. And his economic theories can only be described as socialist.

The dumbass fucknut House here in California just used a terrorist killing to waddle out more gun laws. It was SO OBVIOUS that they were just waiting for an excuse to pass laws that they had sitting in their back pocket. The bonehead that came forward to explain how they were going to save us from ourselves was just a moron. See, there is no "extreme" when it comes to Constitutional rights--you have them, period. You don't have them "extremely". You don't have them "mostly", or "within reason". Outta control.

For those specific examples, yes. But the idolization of Ghandi has pissed me off for a long time. The man genuinely was a bigoted, hateful person. Do the reading yourself. (Same goes for Mother Teresa. That woman embezzled church funds and inflicted as much suffering as possible on the people under her care, because she felt it purified the soul.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by cordycord

See, there is no "extreme" when it comes to Constitutional rights--you have them, period. You don't have them "extremely". You don't have them "mostly", or "within reason".

No, but you can certainly express said rights in an extreme way.

Say, hypothetically, that people have a right to wear whatever they want. I think this is sort of inferred, but let's say that it's the last bit of the 1st Amendment "... for a redress of grievances, or the right to wear any damn thing you want, regardless of how fat and ugly you are."

Now, a normal fat person would simply put on some yoga pants and not give a **** about their moose-knuckle. And most people do just this.

But then you get the occasional 1st-amendment nut who goes out of her way to express her rights in the most extreme way possible, and to make damn sure everyone else knows about it, because she gets validation by being told that she's #bodypositive and #beautiful by other fat, ugly people.

So, this lady:

Does she have the right to dress like that and hold a sign telling people not to look at her? Yes she does.

Would I attempt to abridge that right? No I would not.

Will I still mock her for it? Yup.

That's basically a succinct example of what true Libertarianism means. You have the right to act like a retard, and I have the right to call you out for it.

For those specific examples, yes. But the idolization of Ghandi has pissed me off for a long time. The man genuinely was a bigoted, hateful person. Do the reading yourself. (Same goes for Mother Teresa. That woman embezzled church funds and inflicted as much suffering as possible on the people under her care, because she felt it purified the soul.)

No, but you can certainly express said rights in an extreme way.

Say, hypothetically, that people have a right to wear whatever they want. I think this is sort of inferred, but let's say that it's the last bit of the 1st Amendment "... for a redress of grievances, or the right to wear any damn thing you want, regardless of how fat and ugly you are."

Now, a normal fat person would simply put on some yoga pants and not give a **** about their moose-knuckle. And most people do just this.

But then you get the occasional 1st-amendment nut who goes out of her way to express her rights in the most extreme way possible, and to make damn sure everyone else knows about it, because she gets validation by being told that she's #bodypositive and #beautiful by other fat, ugly people.

So, this lady:

Does she have the right to dress like that and hold a sign telling people not to look at her? Yes she does.

Would I attempt to abridge that right? No I would not.

Will I still mock her for it? Yup.

That's basically a succinct example of what true Libertarianism means. You have the right to act like a retard, and I have the right to call you out for it.

Totally down with Miss Jiggly Arms. And rights are rights. She's fat, and you don't want to abridge that. Me neither. I bet her boyfriend has trouble keeping things abridged without a little blue pill. My point is that California has successfully abridged gun owner rights to the point that it's overly expensive, overly bureaucratic and overly litigious to own something that is my 2nd Amendment right to own. Sacramento has abridged us right up the poop chute with their web of lies/laws. We now have so many laws, ordinances and rules on the books that our our Constitutional Republic has morphed into a Napoleonic code, where gun owners are presumed guilty. Property rights are next, and we'll see the fight for it in our lifetime.